A climber has been bombarded with hate messages after he abandoned his elderly dog on a Scottish mountain when she collapsed during a hike.

Paul Finnegan, of Shotts in North Lanarkshire, Scotland, was walking along the 3,074ft Beinn Sgulaird mountain when his Border Collie, Meg, lost the use of her legs.

The owner made the heartbreaking decision to leave the 12-year-old pet behind after he and his friend struggled to carry her against the horrendous wind and rain.

Morag McNeill lashed out at Paul on Facebook, writing: 'I am actually raging and sad at the same time. I am naming and shaming this absolute a******.

'Paul Finnegan from Shotts, took his border collie Meg up Beinn Sgulaird at the weekend. She got tired and her legs gave way, she's 12, and he left her up there to die.

'Anybody who knows him please tell him what a vile person he is. He doesn't deserve the love of a dog.'

Heidi Blasius wrote: 'Poor judgment and not a lick of common sense. Failed this dog.'

Another commented: 'How on earth can anyone walk away from their pet and just leave it? I would move heaven and earth and always find SOME way to rescue my dog if needed, she's more important than me. Animals rely on their owners to look after them, how can you just walk away?'

Karen Mills was equally disgusted: 'Every time I read something on Missing Megs group I get more and more angry towards the owner.

'That poor dog would never of left his side if it was him that was hurt. He should be prosecuted for abandonment and neglect. K*******!'

Dorothy Dot Marshall commented: 'It was an act of pure cruelty. It is against the law to let any animal suffer, only a coward would do that.'

And Emma Hardy wrote: 'I can't believe the amount of people defending the heartless s***, people are risking their lives to try to find her and he's just going about his usual week.'

Yet relatives hit back at the scathing comments, imploring people to understand how difficult the decision was to make.

Family member Holli McGowan said: 'Paul never left Meg for dead. Paul had no signal and tried his hardest to carry her. Between him and his friend he carried her for as long as possible while falling and fighting against the wind and rain.

'Paul went to get help, so please until you know the full story, stop listening to people's bulls because I am sick to the back teeth of hearing so many nasty comments.'

Another relative confirmed that Paul would be returning to the mountain today to continue the search.

Meg has been missing since January 14.

A relative of Paul's posted on Lost Dogs Glasgow the following day and said: 'My family member was up Beinn Sgulaird mountain yesterday with his dog. His dog's back legs gave way and he tried everything to get her off safe but it was too dangerous with the weather and it was getting dark, so he had no other option but to leave her.

'He came off the mountain and slept in his car till first light and tried to go up and find her, but can't find her, as it was too dark last night they can't remember where she is.'

Not every response has been negative and dozens of volunteers continue to search Beinn Sgulaird.

The local mountain rescue team believe the dog could still be alive but are not prepared to put their own members' safety at risk to search for the pet reportedly.

But a crowdfunding page was set up to help fuel those searching and has smashed the original target of £500 by more than double the amount.

However, frustration grew when it was revealed that the first map of Meg's location was incorrect - with volunteers 'risking their lives on the wrong part of the mountain'.

Andy Ravenhill, Oban Mountain Rescue Team Leader, said that the criticism levelled at the dog owner was harsh.

He added: 'It wasn't the right choice or wrong choice. No one can really tell what they would do in that situation until they are in it. 'It would have been a really hard decision to make, and he will just have to live with it either way.'

Well there are millions of childless people just as there are millions of liars, perhaps that’s who you mean? Would you put a pet above a child? A dog would eat your arse if it got hungry enough. Probably.

They really are far more selfish than you realise.

This isn't about putting a pet before a child.

On the whole dogs outweigh humans for loyalty and love by a long way. You don't find them screwing you over or betraying you or dumping you when you get old. They love and adore you no matter what you look like, or what you do to them. Their loyalty is unconditional. Because that's their nature. Sadly, when there are bad dogs... people made them so by abuse and cruelty. So, when something like this happens, it's all the more horrible because of that undying loyalty. It's like the ultimate betrayal.

Well there are millions of childless people just as there are millions of liars, perhaps that’s who you mean? Would you put a pet above a child? A dog would eat your arse if it got hungry enough. Probably.

They really are far more selfish than you realise.

This isn't about putting a pet before a child.

On the whole dogs outweigh humans for loyalty and love by a long way. You don't find them screwing you over or betraying you or dumping you when you get old. They love and adore you no matter what you look like, or what you do to them. Their loyalty is unconditional. Because that's their nature. Sadly, when there are bad dogs... people made them so by abuse and cruelty. So, when something like this happens, it's all the more horrible because of that undying loyalty. It's like the ultimate betrayal.

Sorry but you are comparing love here?

All you can do with a dog is show effection and love and it is returned

Its more like slavery. As in reality, that dog would never have such a relationship, if not for humans altering and domesticating them. It means you have placed animals being reliant on humans.

That is not love, but reliance.

That is why humans can be so selfish. You think that its love, but true love would allow any animal its freedom.

_________________Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.

Well, the argument is, if he couldn't carry a collie down a mountain, how would he carry a child? I think you'll find that saying a child is different from a beloved pet doesn't wash with most animal lovers, particularly those with no kids. Love is love. Doesn't matter what you attach your love to or whom.

Well lets put this to the test

Who would you save, if you were left with the choice of only being able to save one here.

The child or the dog?

Its a no brainer, you would save the child

I agree that its utterly dumb to take an old animal on such a hike, but given the fear they had, would I have looked to save the dog?

No

As much as i love animals, survival means you dont compremise your ability to survive

I would give my life for a child, but not an animal

This isn't about putting a child over a dog, though is it? So putting this argument across isn't relevant. There was no child involved. The point here is that most dog lovers, including myself, would have found some way to get that animal to safety and two grown men, who had no problem getting the dead dog down a few days later in worse conditions, couldn't carry that poor dog between them? They passed empty cottages on the way down, they could have left her in there and out of the elements.

What everyone seems to be missing here is that this man disappeared for four days and left others to search the mountain for the dog with the wrong coordinates he gave them. Then on the last day, he appears, goes up the mountain and finds the body straight away. Coincidence? I doubt it.

I think the dog died up there, but rather than admit that his actions killed his elderly animal, he said it got injured and they couldn't carry her down because she was too heavy.

Who would you save, if you were left with the choice of only being able to save one here.

The child or the dog?

Its a no brainer, you would save the child

I agree that its utterly dumb to take an old animal on such a hike, but given the fear they had, would I have looked to save the dog?

No

As much as i love animals, survival means you dont compremise your ability to survive

I would give my life for a child, but not an animal

This isn't about putting a child over a dog, though is it? So putting this argument across isn't relevant. There was no child involved. The point here is that most dog lovers, including myself, would have found some way to get that animal to safety and two grown men, who had no problem getting the dead dog down a few days later in worse conditions, couldn't carry that poor dog between them? They passed empty cottages on the way down, they could have left her in there and out of the elements.

What everyone seems to be missing here is that this man disappeared for four days and left others to search the mountain for the dog with the wrong coordinates he gave them. Then on the last day, he appears, goes up the mountain and finds the body straight away. Coincidence? I doubt it.

I think the dog died up there, but rather than admit that his actions killed his elderly animal, he said it got injured and they couldn't carry her down because she was too heavy.

I agree its not relavant, but what is, in realiaty is how humans are selfish

The dog should have never been there and sadly humans have become realiant on the want and need of animals for love and affection. We have domesticated animals for our own needs, not theirs. Whilst dogs are very much the best human companions, its because we have manipulated this. Dogs have many abilities that we use, for the blind, for military etc, but again its for our needs.

I agrree with you that the story does not hold water and he fucked up here, but the moment we get angry over how we claim to say he was a bastard. When we never spare one thought how we basically enslave and breed animals for our own needs. Is hypocritical at best.

I do not like to see any animal suffer, but then I am a hypocrite as a I eat meat

_________________Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.

As we have modelled animals to fit our needs and be reliant on us, surely the least we can do is care properly for them and not put them in danger in the way this man did and if something does happen you do your best for them however difficult. This sentiment even appears in holy books, its about the only thing you should do on the Sabbath, take care of your animals and rescue or treat any in need, if required. Its becoming increasingly clear 'dumb animals' are not so dumb after all, in the sense we use the phrase nor lacking in traits, like grieving, that we arrogantly thought only belonged to humans.

This isn't about putting a child over a dog, though is it? So putting this argument across isn't relevant. There was no child involved. The point here is that most dog lovers, including myself, would have found some way to get that animal to safety and two grown men, who had no problem getting the dead dog down a few days later in worse conditions, couldn't carry that poor dog between them? They passed empty cottages on the way down, they could have left her in there and out of the elements.

What everyone seems to be missing here is that this man disappeared for four days and left others to search the mountain for the dog with the wrong coordinates he gave them. Then on the last day, he appears, goes up the mountain and finds the body straight away. Coincidence? I doubt it.

I think the dog died up there, but rather than admit that his actions killed his elderly animal, he said it got injured and they couldn't carry her down because she was too heavy.

I agree its not relavant, but what is, in realiaty is how humans are selfish

The dog should have never been there and sadly humans have become realiant on the want and need of animals for love and affection. We have domesticated animals for our own needs, not theirs. Whilst dogs are very much the best human companions, its because we have manipulated this. Dogs have many abilities that we use, for the blind, for military etc, but again its for our needs.

I agrree with you that the story does not hold water and he fucked up here, but the moment we get angry over how we claim to say he was a bastard. When we never spare one thought how we basically enslave and breed animals for our own needs. Is hypocritical at best.

I do not like to see any animal suffer, but then I am a hypocrite as a I eat meat

It's also natural too, for most humans to have humanity, and while some on here think its foolish to go in search of a dead/lost dog, everyone was hoping against hope she was still alive. My take on it is...all life that is loved is precious. People were moved by this story because they were mostly dog lovers and the thought of that poor dog dying alone was unbearable for them. In a mostly shitty world, little sparks of love and compassion like this are heartening.

Not everyone would put a human being before a child.We had this discussion on a forum a long time ago.The scenario was in a burning building you could only save one....a small child or a dog.One woman was adamant that she would save her own dog over a strangers child.

The love of an animal can be as strong as the love of a child...especially if you know the animal and you don't know the child.

Syl wrote:Not everyone would put a human being before a child.We had this discussion on a forum a long time ago.The scenario was in a burning building you could only save one....a small child or a dog.One woman was adamant that she would save her own dog over a strangers child.

The love of an animal can be as strong as the love of a child...especially if you know the animal and you don't know the child.

That's a really hard one. Because for some people their pet is their child. They put just as much store on it and invest just the same kind of love. People who don't love animals can't get that. So it boils down to not the fact that it's an animal, but that it's a another living thing you love.

There are plenty of people out there who wouldn't save a kid if the choice was the child or their own lives.

So, if you were on a freezing mountain and you knew that you'd die if you stayed with a child, what would you do? Leave the kid? Or save yourself?

Syl wrote:Not everyone would put a human being before a child.We had this discussion on a forum a long time ago.The scenario was in a burning building you could only save one....a small child or a dog.One woman was adamant that she would save her own dog over a strangers child.

The love of an animal can be as strong as the love of a child...especially if you know the animal and you don't know the child.

That's a really hard one. Because for some people their pet is their child. They put just as much store on it and invest just the same kind of love. People who don't love animals can't get that. So it boils down to not the fact that it's an animal, but that it's a another living thing you love.

There are plenty of people out there who wouldn't save a kid if the choice was the child or their own lives.

So, if you were on a freezing mountain and you knew that you'd die if you stayed with a child, what would you do? Leave the kid? Or save yourself?

I could never ever leave a child to save myself...if you can save yourself you have the chance of saving the child too.

The hypothetical question of which would you save...if you could only rescue one from a building, a dog or a child is more complicated.Yes...the child is more important, but if its your dog that you love, or a child you have never met...I can see the dilemma.

That's a really hard one. Because for some people their pet is their child. They put just as much store on it and invest just the same kind of love. People who don't love animals can't get that. So it boils down to not the fact that it's an animal, but that it's a another living thing you love.

There are plenty of people out there who wouldn't save a kid if the choice was the child or their own lives.

So, if you were on a freezing mountain and you knew that you'd die if you stayed with a child, what would you do? Leave the kid? Or save yourself?

I could never ever leave a child to save myself...if you can save yourself you have the chance of saving the child too.

The hypothetical question of which would you save...if you could only rescue one from a building, a dog or a child is more complicated.Yes...the child is more important, but if its your dog that you love, or a child you have never met...I can see the dilemma.

So...the crux of the matter here is..if you could carry a child down that mountain, then you could carry a dog? Nobody in their right mind would leave a child. You'd carry it if it killed you. So why not a dog? One you've had for 12 years.

I'm afraid this attitude of 'It's only a dog' really gets on my tits. This attitude is why animals are still subjected to cruelty and abuse. Perhaps they should try saying 'It's only a life'.

This attitude is why that poor dog got abandoned and tied to lampost in the snow and shot by the police. Because some geranium thought it was 'only a dog'.

I couldn't live with myself if I'd left someone alone, without hope, just couldn't do it.

Most people couldn't, Mags. Thank God.

To put the record straight, I did say that I’d carry a dog as far as humanely possible but, if it was a choice of me or him, I’d definitely put myself first. I suppose what I mean is, I’d push myself harder with my child and would literally die walking with the child in my arms rather than leave them. Not so with a pet. If it got so I had to make a choice then I’d leave the pet and give my own life one last shot.I think most people really, would make that choice too. The human survival instinct is incredibly strong.

_________________No one ever made a difference by being like everyone else.